My plan to save American democracy

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by C0ckney


some societies allow prisoners to vote and some do not. the point though is that if they do, then it is part of the punishment that that particular society has for people who break the law, which as bebro rightly says it applies to a person regardless of race, religion or political affiliation.

Isn't that convenient? You can create a restriction on voting and affect political outcomes, and say you did so without regard to race, religion and political affiliation.

Boy, you conservatives think your so smart.

[C0ckney]

sorry what is your point exactly?

that many people are smarter than you, we know that already.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I merely said that it would be fair to create a restriction on voting for those who own lots of guns. I didn't say I would restrict voting by conservatives as an entire group.

Cool, so that would cover all with lotsa guns, not only conservatives? IMO it would be easier to have better gun control then, not make silly voting restrictions.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by C0ckney
sorry what is your point exactly?

that many people are smarter than you, we know that already.

You just made my point. You think that people should fall for your rhetoric, when it doesn't make any sense, and if they don't you call them stupid. It's a very authoritarian things to do. This is how kids grow up in conservative households. They can't make sense of what their parents teach them, because it doesn't make any sense, so they stop trying and accept it.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by C0ckney
there is certainly something comical about claiming that democracy would 'work better' if only we could remove huge numbers if people from the political process. the problem of course is that aggie is serious...

pretty much every representative government has some form of limiting the franchise, though they tend to be fairly unbiased.


[edit]reading the thread for the win[/edit]

[Agathon]

Originally posted by BeBro

Like those who want to remove anyone from the political process they don't like with the vague promise that "everyone will be better off" then? If I want an Obrigkeitsstaat, I could as well go back to the Kaiserreich, they had at least cool battleships.

Oh for God's sake. It's not removing "anyone I don't like". There are plenty of people I can't stand who would still get to vote. It's not about prohibiting certain ideas, but about prohibiting certain dysfunctional personalities from damaging the political process. That this is the problem with human political organizations was evident to the very first person who ever wrote in depth about it. The problem is not their beliefs, but their incapability to co-operate rationally with others.

Nor is it about stopping stupid people from voting. There are many people who aren't too bright, but who are low RWAs and who are quite capable of being fair minded.

People who believe in democracy tend to conflate two ideas: (1) that universal suffrage is somehow the best way of deciding political questions; and, (2) that universal suffrage is some kind of human right. Both of these have their root in the Enlightenment idea that all human beings are equally rational autonomous choosers capable of making good, collective political decisions.

The evidence for these claims is rather thin, and the problem is what happens if they conflict?. As a matter of fact, (3) is false (and only someone in complete denial could believe it is true – the research on authoritarianism is just one small part of a larger discrediting), which throws (1) into doubt. If (1) is in doubt, then you face a dilemma: democracy is good because it recognizes certain universal rights, but doing so also produces suboptimal political results. Only a moron would hang on to (2) if everyone would be better off by rejecting it (and no society really believes in it anyway).

Our societies aren't perfect, but ridding them of the political influence of bigots, fundamentalists and crypto-fascists could only be a boon. In fact, we know it is a boon, because if you remove them the prospects for effective co-operation become much greater (that was the point of the Global Change Game experiment).

The only argument I can see against this is that the rest of the community would vote in its own interest to exploit the authoritarians who could not vote. The problem is that non-authoritarians just don't tend to behave like this. It's the authoritarians who are wedded to unfairness and exploitation.

Democracy is essentially a matter of religious faith in our society. Liberals, who complain about Christian and Muslim irrationality are no better when it comes to their ridiculous 200 year old beliefs about human nature and political organization.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by C0ckney
there is certainly something comical about claiming that democracy would 'work better' if only we could remove huge numbers if people from the political process. the problem of course is that aggie is serious...

The only thing that is comical is your faith based politics. Stop living in the 18th century and you might have something interesting to contribute.

[Elok]

The trick (one of the many tricks, anyway) to understanding Agathon is realizing that he does not use words the same way a normal person does. "Authoritarian," for example, seems to be a fairly broad term indicative of anybody who disagrees with Agathon. On many of the things we commonly associate with the term "authoritarianism," such as censorship, oppression and denial of freedoms...well, he's actually their biggest fan on this site.

[Kidlicious]

If conservatives weren't more authoritarian I would expect there to be some evidence to that effect to counter all the studies that have pointed to the fact that they are.

[Agathon]

And even more evidence just released

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/918/2

You see, right wing people are defective. Throw rocks at them.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Agathon


Oh for God's sake. It's not removing "anyone I don't like". There are plenty of people I can't stand who would still get to vote. It's not about prohibiting certain ideas, but about prohibiting certain dysfunctional personalities from damaging the political process. That this is the problem with human political organizations was evident to the very first person who ever wrote in depth about it. The problem is not their beliefs, but their incapability to co-operate rationally with others.

Nor is it about stopping stupid people from voting. There are many people who aren't too bright, but who are low RWAs and who are quite capable of being fair minded.

People who believe in democracy tend to conflate two ideas: (1) that universal suffrage is somehow the best way of deciding political questions; and, (2) that universal suffrage is some kind of human right. Both of these have their root in the Enlightenment idea that all human beings are equally rational autonomous choosers capable of making good, collective political decisions.

The evidence for these claims is rather thin, and the problem is what happens if they conflict?. As a matter of fact, (3) is false (and only someone in complete denial could believe it is true – the research on authoritarianism is just one small part of a larger discrediting), which throws (1) into doubt. If (1) is in doubt, then you face a dilemma: democracy is good because it recognizes certain universal rights, but doing so also produces suboptimal political results. Only a moron would hang on to (2) if everyone would be better off by rejecting it (and no society really believes in it anyway).

Our societies aren't perfect, but ridding them of the political influence of bigots, fundamentalists and crypto-fascists could only be a boon. In fact, we know it is a boon, because if you remove them the prospects for effective co-operation become much greater (that was the point of the Global Change Game experiment).

The only argument I can see against this is that the rest of the community would vote in its own interest to exploit the authoritarians who could not vote. The problem is that non-authoritarians just don't tend to behave like this. It's the authoritarians who are wedded to unfairness and exploitation.

Democracy is essentially a matter of religious faith in our society. Liberals, who complain about Christian and Muslim irrationality are no better when it comes to their ridiculous 200 year old beliefs about human nature and political organization.

I hoped you were trolling, but it seems you are not. It seems you have it in your head that you just can "design" society on paper like you want to, without ever looking what it means at the core or what the consequences will be. What does "prohibiting certain dysfunctional personalities from damaging the political process" mean? Do we talk here about a one or two guys? If so, how would they make a difference that justifies the change at all?

If not, and we're talking about large groups, what will it mean for a society that excludes large groups from participation? In the last some 100 yrs lotsa political struggles were about more, not less participation for large parts of the pop, on various levels. Those societies back then didn't work at all better, and didn't serve better the common good.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You just made my point. You think that people should fall for your rhetoric, when it doesn't make any sense, and if they don't you call them stupid. It's a very authoritarian things to do. This is how kids grow up in conservative households. They can't make sense of what their parents teach them, because it doesn't make any sense, so they stop trying and accept it.

just to be clear kid, i don't call people who disagree with me stupid. aggie may be wrong, but he's not stupid.

when i call you stupid, it's because if we are talking about the sharpest knife in the draw, then you remind me of the tea-towel. it's why some people have you on ignore, because it's very frustrating dealing with someone who struggles with basic comprehension in a debate and just repeats the same old crap, over and over, in the hope that people will get fed up with it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by C0ckney


just to be clear kid, i don't call people who disagree with me stupid. aggie may be wrong, but he's not stupid.

when i call you stupid, it's because if we are talking about the sharpest knife in the draw, then you remind me of the tea-towel. it's why some people have you on ignore, because it's very frustrating dealing with someone who struggles with basic comprehension in a debate and just repeats the same old crap, over and over, in the hope that people will get fed up with it.

I don't put you on ignore because you're just too easy of a target. If you think I'm so harmless why do you threaten to put me on ignore?

[C0ckney]

see kid, that is the perfect example of what i'm talking about. namely, your inability to read and comprehend a simple statement. i mean, there's barely a paragraph written, yet still you manage to read something which isn't there and respond based on that.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by C0ckney
see kid, that is the perfect example of what i'm talking about.

And you make a very valid point concerning the issue at hand - NOT!

Go away now.